Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2007 December 5

< December 4	December 6 >

December 5

Image:Leah and Robert.jpg

Image:Leah and Robert.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Princess kimiko (notify | contribs).

Unencyclopedic, orphaned personal photo Kelvinc (talk) 01:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unencyclopedic and orphaned; can only conceivably be used on editor's userpage, but absence from Wikipedia since upload suggests that it will never be used by the uploader. Oc t ane ^{[improve me]} 05.12.07 0801 (UTC)

Image:Carbis.jpg

Image:Carbis.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Paddon (notify | contribs).

Orphaned image that was originally used in an article that was speedy deletion as patent nonsense (see [1]). The image now has no real worthwhile value or use after my (in hindsight rather stupid) attempt to use it here (see [2]). Guest9999 (talk) 12:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was:

Image:Rudy_Herman_Guede.jpg

Image:Rudy_Herman_Guede.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by EgraS (notify | contribs).

rationale given is bogus. Image was not released by a company or organization to promote their work or product in the media JaneGrey (talk) 13:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Image does not contribute to article in a significant way otherwise. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 16:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete also per WP:V: impossible to verify if Facebook account or photo really is him. Kelvinc (talk) 05:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up: I've removed the image from the page per WP:BLP. Captioning the photo of someone as a murder suspect is unacceptable if the identity of the photo subject cannot be verified. Kelvinc (talk) 08:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've replaced the image with a police photo released via Reuters and changed the FU template to the generic one. I think the use of a police photo is (temporarily) fair use, even though the subject is living, because he is in custody. Kelvinc (talk) 17:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Police photo is reliable and of high relevance to article. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 17:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think it's quite obvious for the image to be kept. It is of small resolution, has 0 commercial value since they have already been very widely dissimenated, and make a contribution to the article. EgraS (talk) 02:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NFCC#8 in its article. The article isn't about this person, specifically. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 18:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete reasons above, also not appropriate for an encyclopedia, also inappropriate as subject is simply a suspect, and a tangential player in a minor news story.217.44.176.159 (talk) 10:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not deleted - concerns about tagging and verifiability have been met, no consensus to delete for fair use policy reasons. --B (talk) 15:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Image:Pwnd.jpg

Image:Pwnd.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Green diamond (notify | contribs).

Orphaned and irrelevant. It's just some guy smoking weed. Moyabrit (talk) 18:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Orphaned, and not suitable for usage in any article. Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 06:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was:

Image:Dscn3622.png

Image:Dscn3622.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by IcDesigner (notify | contribs).

Image is too much original research to be acceptable. Nv8200p talk 19:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this image and the conclusions drawn from it are hosted elsewhere, and then referenced in Wikipedia, would that satisfy the original research clause? I feel that this photograph contains very important information and adds value to the article. Dotancohen (talk) 10:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like trying to get around WP:OR through WP:SPS, which is unacceptable. Kelvinc (talk) 17:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The paragraph that makes the claim about the "dramatic drop" of capacitance is unreferenced. If a reliable third party source was cited to back this claim up, I would probably withdraw the nomination. The image would then be (to me) supporting something verifiable. -Nv8200p talk 15:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that's going a bit far. The point of original research is to stop new scientific claims, ideas, conclusions, etc, from being presented on Wikipedia until they have first gained acceptance, or at least notice, in outside media. But if the idea that capacitors with gak on them lose their effectiveness is already an accepted idea, I don't see a problem with this per se. I do see a problem with handwritten notes on a piece of notebook paper and would prefer to see it photoshopped so that the capacitors themselves are shown and visible without clicking on the image. --B (talk) 15:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I would tend to agree with B. The image adds to the article, and nothing it says is controversial. I think the poster could strengthen it by explaining how he or she measured the capacitance (it is not clear how one would define the capacitance of a device with an unusual, potentially time-varying, potentially frequency-varying, potentially nonlinear element, but even without that, I think it makes sense to keep it. That said, I will try to add a reference and post it later this month or early January. 128.30.16.209 (talk) 02:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC) (author of the article on passive components, never edited the one on capacitor plague)[reply]

No clear consensus. Opinions presented have made me reconsider the image. I am withdrawing my nomination -Nv8200p talk 13:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Image:Tokyo_Sexwale.jpg

Image:Tokyo_Sexwale.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ekhaya2000 (notify | contribs).

Obvious copyvio, with watermark. (User says "my self", which appears baldly untrue) – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Image is copyright according to source website (see here for motorsport.com's trademarks). Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 06:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:AVA-202.jpg

Image:AVA-202.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Azerbaycanli (notify | contribs).

Uploaded by brand-new user, tagged as GFDL, but watermarked as coming from a source that claims copyright – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Cyril_Ramaphosa.jpg

Image:Cyril_Ramaphosa.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ekhaya2000 (notify | contribs).

Commercial photo, claimed PD-user. User says "myself" in the description, but he said the same thing in other patent copyvios – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If this is actually the user, then (s)he'd have to explain Image:Tokyo_Sexwale.jpg, and why (s)he said that was themself, too. The person depicted in the pictures is clearly not the same. Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 06:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was:

Image:BenedictJones.jpg

Image:BenedictJones.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Lisa.debruine (notify | contribs).

Originally listed by Mdbrownsw with malformed template and without explanation. Relisting as a courtesy. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 22:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - We have an article for Benedict Jones, who is the same person as confirmed by the link on the image. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 04:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kept, at least so long as the article is kept. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 23:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.